Because: He was a stuburn man who for a few decades tryed and tryed to be a president of Chile, he wanted to be a somebody, and he choosed communism without even understanding what it was. he hided his own frustration on the bottle because his own sister and the Diabolic Carlos Altamirano where trying to put him away so they could take over. Salvador Allende always knewed the reality and he was between the party and the bottle. every body speaks nicely about the Allende Family. but it is not the truth.

-Salvador Allende and his Family tryed to show the world that they cared about the poor. but they were the kind of people who were against the wealthy and used Socialism for his own goods.

-even know Salvador's Family still uses his name to continue his Legacy, remember that his own wife got money every time she was in public with him because they were seperated before he was unfairly elected President of Chile. Everybody knewed his mistress Payita who was with him he died by own of his "own" men. At the end he saw his ownly solution was to die for his own good.

-If his Government said and convinced their people that they had the truth, Why did they take the Country's Treasure's and put them in Swiss Bank accounts, and flyed away to hide in Imperialist Country's, leaving the People who believed in them with no remorce.

Remember That Communism is against Imperialism. And know in the end of the century communism is no more, and only foolish ignorant Individuals speak about communism.

-Chile begged the Armed Forces to restore the Country, And they did it.

Norman Lamont's daddy is depicted as a ruthless idiot in this book, and judging by some of his comments, it's a credible conclusion. However one of the main problems is that it fails to examine his character or psyche in any depth. The author never focuses on how much of the atrocities were masterminded by Pinochet, opting instead for a vague polycratic depiction of the regime.

On the positive side the book does give a general overview of Chile in these times, dispelling the myths Pinochet's defenders have been spurting over here. Contrary to their claims, Pinochet didn't generously bestow democracy on Chile- he was forced to by public protests and a wide coalition of centre, left and right parties. His economic policies were a success only if you consider making the rich richer and the poor poorer, raising unemployment and destroying worker rights, along with increasing corruption among business men and Pinochet's personal kickbacks, desirable (which some of you no doubt do if it means low inflation). As Thatcher adopted his policies in this area it's more understandable as to why she loves her protégé so. Oh and he only restored order over the economic choas caused by the CIA, USA and extreme right wing groups- Allende was only partially responsible.

The book also highlights the US schizophrenic policies towards Chile, from the backing of the coup (ooh, those dangerous communists must be killed, tortured and imprisoned even if democraticly elected, in order to preserve freedom and democracy...) and turning a blind eye to the rape, torture and murder of even their own citizens, to trade embargo's, then Reagan's renewed trading, then assistance to topple the regime when it was weak by- GASP! poisoning two grapes! (honestly)

Overall it's more of a clear, readable overview, rather than a necessary in depth analysis of the key issues raised by his prospected trial. Oh, and as indicated below it's not a book for deranged children or the excessively paranoid.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to write an account of a political upheaval without taking sides to some extent. Despite Ms. Spooner's obvious sympathies with those associated with the Allende regime, she presents a reasonably factual and non-polemical chronology and analysis of events. True, as the above reviewer points out, Ms. Spooner gives a very light treatment of the events that precipitated the coup: the severe economic hardship endured by the population, the financial bankruptcy of the government, militant left-wing and trade union activities that frightened the middle class, and Allende's politically naive decision to ally himself with Fidel Castro. Given this background, the coup and its violence are more explicable as the result of a total breakdown in civil society and the "contract" between the government and the governed. In this light, the Armed Forces could indeed be seen as the guarantors of the Constitution and the restorers of law and order. However, they lost all claim to this noble role by virtue of the bloodbath they perpetrated on the civilian population in the wake of the coup. With a total disregard for the law and order they claimed to restore via the coup, the Chilean military embarked on a crusade of kidnapping, torture and summary execution. Due process was completely ignored, and thousands died arbitrarily at the hands of the military and the secret police, the DINA. Such repression could not be justified: there was no evidence that the "left" had the means to pose a significant threat to the new military regime. Leftists and left-leaning individuals, or those just suspected of holding such views, were hunted down, imprisoned, tortured and frequently murdered. If the Chilean military embarked on the coup with some sort of noble motive in mind to rescue the Constitution, civil government, and the rule of law, they completely lost any credibility as a result of the bloody rampage that followed. I don't see how the above reviewers can justify this behavior. In addtion, as an American, I was outraged by the brutal assassination ordered by the DINA of Orlando Letelier and his American aide, Roni Moffitt in the city and country of my birth. Totally outraged.